Hector M^c.Neill, Protests against the doings and proceedings of the Courtmartial held on Board the Raleigh in Boston Harbour between the 9^th. and 24^th. of June 1778, On a Complaint Exhibited by the Hon^ble. Navy Board, for the Eastern Department, against the said Hector M^c.Neill, for Misconduct and Neglect of Duty comprized in six Articles of Charge.— 

The Protests

1^st. Because a Courtmartial Constituted cheifly of Men, totally unacquainted with Warlike operations at Sea, (some of whom not being Seamen, are unacquainted with Ships in general, more especially Ships of Warr) cannot possibly be competant Judges of the Conduct of a Captain of a Ship of Warr, so as to determine upon his Life, or Character; Especially where the manovering of a Ship, is the point in question such Men having no knowledge of their own in these affairs, can only be governed by the Opinions of other Men, and Consequently are as liable to Vote wrong as right, Especially where the Minds of particular Members of the Court are prejudiced, either for or against the person on Trial.—

2^dly. Because, the Courtmartial did Introduce a Certain Mode of Conduct, in the Trial of Cap^t. Manley,¹ which Mode was not followed in the present Trial.—The Mode spoken of as Introduced on the Trial of Cap^t. Manley was, That all the Evidence in Support of the Charge should be first heard and the Accusers observations deduced therefrom, before the Person accused should be put on his defence,—after which the Accuser was not to reply, or Animadvert on the Prisoners defence—The above Rule was strictly followed in Cap^t. Manley's Trial.—but was not adher'd to, in M^c.Neill's; on the Contrary the Judge Advocate acted as the Accuser, produced what Evidence he could to support the Accusation, after which, he sum'd up the whole with his own Remark[s] which according to the Mode spoken of (in Captain Manleys Trial,) was all he ought to have done on that side of the Question.—but not Contented with all this, he has remarked severely on some of the Evidence, and rejected others, which were offer'd in defence of the party Accused, and he has also Animadverted on the said persons defence.

3^dly. Because, the deposition of Benjamin Crowninshield² taken before a Majestrate at Salem, the very day the said Crowninshield went to Sea (which happen'd also during the recess of the Courtmartial) was rejected, and not admitted as Evidence in the Court aforesaid.—

4^thly. Because, all the Articles of Charge except the Third Article, were repeatedly given up, the Judge Advocate saying that only would be Insisted on.—Whereas in the diffinitive Sentence, the first Article is revived, and part of the Fourth, is also said to be found by the Court, even after the party Accused had made his defence, without thinking it necessary to be particular on those points which had been given up.—the Court appearing Satisfied that they were not to be Insisted upon any further.

5^thly. Because, the said Courtmartial in their Sentence of the 24^th. June 1778,³ have presumed to give their opinion as Law.—without any refference whatsoever, to the Articles of Warr, thereby condemning a Man to perpetual Infamy, without compareing the Nature of the Supposed Offence, with the Rules and Regulations of the Service, as prescribed by the Hon^ble. the Continental Congress for the Government of the American Navy, or any article of Warr, whatever which is contrary to their Oath, and the decipline of the Sea Service.—

6^thly. Because, the Positions of the Ships on the 7^th of July 1777. Exhibited by the said M^c.Neill in December last to the Court of Enquiry,⁴ (and from their proceedings brought into the present Courtmartial) were not adverted to by the Court, but another sett of positions, drawn by a person in the Town of Boston, who never had seen the Ship he pretends to discribe, nor had he any Original Memorandums, made at the time the Transaction happened, for his direction, but meerly to serve a Turn, in drawing these positions, Traced out the present (not the True) Ideas of the Officers most culpable, for the Misfortunes of that day; Whereas the Positions offer'd by M^c.Neill, were done from Original Memorandums made by himself on the Spott, as the different Scene's turn'd up.—

7^thly. Because the Courtmartial did not agreeable to Law and Custom, make the said M^c.Neill acquainted with their final Sentence against him which of right, they ought to have done Immediately after their determination, that he might have it in his power to enter his protest, or appeal, agreable to his Natural Right.

Boston June 30^th. 1778.

Thus Done and Protested in Boston
aforesaid, the Day and Year aforesaid
Att^r Ezek^l Price Not^s Pub^cus